The Noun Phrase in Hawrami 1 Anders Holmberg and David Odden In this paper we describe the structure and functional categories of the noun phrase in Hawrami, a Kurdish / Northwestern Iranian language spoken in a region between Iran and Iraq, paying special attention to -internal agreement or concord. The major description of Hawrami, MacKenzie 1966, concentrates on morphology and describes a version of the language as spoken by previous generations in Nausud (Luhon), whereas the version of the language which we are describing is spoken in Pâwa, 10 miles to the southeast. While the dialect we describe is obviously the same language as that described by MacKenzie, there are important differences especially in the form of agreement affixes. This paper concentrates on the morphosyntax of the Izafe affix, whose pattern of agreement provides crucial evidence for the structure of the noun phrase, particularly the hierarchic relations among the various functional categories of the noun phrase, including the definite article, number, demonstrative and possessive. Given the standard assumption that agreement is always local, and that what matters is structural locality, not linear locality, these agreement facts enable us to draw firm conclusions about structural relations among the categories in the noun phrase. 1 The Izafe, definiteness, number, and demonstratives The Izafe (also spelled Ezafe, particularly in connection with Persian) is an inflection on modified categories in the noun phrase, corresponding to English of in some of its uses but not others. In Persian, one affix -e is used for many functions, whereas in Hawrami Izafe has several different realizations, -i, -æ, -e, -u, the choice being based on the category of the modifier and the presence and the nature of certain agreement-triggering elements such as 1 Research for this paper was supported by a grant from the Leverhulme Foundation to Anders Holmberg. We would like to thank our Hawrami consultant, Koresh Rafie, for his invaluable assistance. The number of speakers of Hawrami is unknown, but is probably less than 100,000, possibly less than 50,000. We take no position on the historical relationship between Hawrami and closely related languages such as Sorani, Kurmandji and Zazaki.
130 The Noun Phrase in Hawrami number and definiteness. 2 Nouns are morphologically bare in their citation form (æsp horse ) and adjectives are postnominal. The Izafe suffix -i is added to the head noun when it comes before an adjective, and if the noun is modified by more than one adjective, each adjective except the last one is also affixed with the Izafe -i. (1) a. æsp-i sya:w horse-iz black black horse b. æsp-i sya:w-i zɪl horse-iz black-iz big big black horse c. æsp-i zɪl-i sya:w-i xas horse-iz big-iz black-iz good good big black horse Taking a noun phrase consisting of a noun and attributive adjectives to be basically [[[[N] A] A]...A], each modified constituent is marked with the suffix -i. The Izafe suffix appears not only before lexical adjectives, but also before deverbal stative predicates, which may have the past suffix -d or the negative na-, thus Izafe is not limited to appearing before lexical adjectives. (2) a. dræx-i mær-d-æ tree-iz die-past dead tree b. pyæ-i na -raħæt man-iz not -comfortable uncomfortable man The appearance of the Izafe on a noun with the indefinite suffix -ewæ is optional, but this optionality exists only on the noun. Omission of the Izafe on an adjective is not possible. (3) a. mar-ewæ zɪl-i raš snake-indef big-iz black 2 Gender exists in Hawrami, but in this dialect, feminine suffixation on adjectives is dispreferred. Thus žæni zɪl-æ big woman is judged to be not common, compared to žæni zɪl. Feminine adjectives are rare in our notes, so we do not discuss gender agreement.
Anders Holmberg and David Odden 131 b. mar -ew-i zɪl-i raš snake -indef-iz big-iz black a big black snake c. *mar-ewæ zɪl-ø raš We treat this as optional realization: -i may be omitted after the indefinite suffix. The Izafe suffix is added to the end of the modifier phrase, and does not appear on every word within a complex modifier such as very long. (4) mar-i [fra drež]-i zɪl snake-iz very long-iz big big, very long snake Prehead elements (various quantifiers) do not bear the Izafe suffix. (5) a. faqat tut-ewæ some dog-indef some dog b. ħæyč kawɨr-e any sheep-pl any sheep c. kam mar which snake which snake? d. čɨnn mar-e how many snake-pl how many snakes e. yær-ʊmin ta:š ækæ three-adj stone -def. art. the third stone We conclude that the Izafe -i is suffixed to a modified by an adjective, as a phrasal affix (we discuss the relationship of pre-head modifiers to the later).
132 The Noun Phrase in Hawrami (6) AP IZ -i AP zɪl big N mar snake IZ -i fra drež very long Marking of definiteness and the resulting pattern of concord provides our first look at the agreement properties of Izafe. The definite article -ækæ appears at the end of the phrase; an adjective will have the Izafe suffix, but in this case it is realised as -æ. The definite article, unlike the indefinite article -ewæ, attaches to the end of the, and therefore follows any adjectives. All adjectives except the last one are marked with the definite Izafe -æ. (7) a. æsp-ækæ horse-def.art. the horse b. æsp-æ zɪl-ækæ horse-iz def big-def.art. the big horse c. *æsp-i zɪl-ækæ horse-iz big-def.art. the big horse d. æsp-æ sya:w-æ zɪl -ækæ horse-iz def black -IZ def big-def.art. the big black horse cf. e. qrwa:q-ew -i sawz-i zɪl frog -indef-iz green-iz big a big green frog We assume the structure in (8); furthermore, we assume that the Izafe must agree in features with the definite article (details are discussed below).
Anders Holmberg and David Odden 133 (8) Det AP -ækæ N æsp IZ -æ zɪl In this case, IZ agrees in definiteness feature with the head -ækæ. 3 Plural noun phrases are indicated with the affix -e (also -a:, which we have not investigated) which appears at the right edge of the phrase. Like the definite article, this affix governs agreement on the Izafe suffix, so the Izafe suffix in a noun phrase before the plural marker -e takes the form -e rather than -i. (9) a. wres rope b. wres-e ropes c. wres-e drež-e rope-iz pl long-pl long ropes d. wres-e drež-e xas-e rope-iz pl long-iz pl good-pl good long ropes As with the default form of the Izafe suffix, the plural Izafe does not appear inside an adjective phrase, but agreement will propagate past such a phrase 3 We adopt the following conventions for labelling nodes in nominal projections. We distinguish only between, PossP, and DP, where DP dominates PossP and, and PossP dominates, and furthermore, D closes the nominal projection. As will be seen below, the definite suffix -ækæ occurs in the scope of a Possessor, and even in the scope of a number-denoting functional head, and therefore does not close the nominal projection. It is therefore part of the -portion of the nominal projection. Def and the plural suffix PL (dealt with below) are nonetheless heads, PL selecting Def, but not vice versa. The logic of our approach dictates that nominal arguments have a covert D as the highest functional head, unless they have an overt one (see discussion of the demonstrative below). We do not, however, include such a category in our representations. An alternative would have been adopting a labelfree representation, as advocated by Collins (2000).
134 The Noun Phrase in Hawrami (10) mar-e fræ drež-e zɪl-e snake-iz pl very long-iz pl big-pl big, very long snakes The example in (11) shows the plural affix with a numeral. (11) du-e æsp-e zɪl-e sya:w-e two-pl horse-iz pl big-iz pl black-pl 2 big black horses Overt plural marking on the is optional when plurality is semantically recoverable from a numeral. The form of the Izafe suffix is therefore plural -e just in case there is an overt plural marker at the end of the clause, and is otherwise -i. (12) a. due æsp-e zɪl-e two horse-iz pl big-pl two big horses b. due æsp-i zɪl two horse-iz big two big horses Plural agreement of the Izafe is required if the noun phrase ends with a plural marker; the plural is at the end of the noun phrase, if it is present anywhere. (13) a. *due æsp-i zɪl-e b. *æsp-e zɪl, *æsp-i zɪl-e Izafe marking itself is not optional (14) a. *due æsp zɪl(-e) (no Izafe, with or without final plural) b. *due æsp-e zɪl (plural Izafe without the triggering plural suffix) This shows that the plural Izafe suffix is due to agreement, not semantic plurality. Definiteness and plurality can be combined in a noun phrase, and the definite article follows the plural marker (which may be -e, -a: or -a:n in free variation). If the contains an adjective, and consequently contains an Izafe suffix, this Izafe suffix will have the definite form -æ, not the plural form -e. (15) a. wres -æk -{e, -a:, -a:n} rope -def.art.-pl the ropes
Anders Holmberg and David Odden 135 b. wres-æ drež-æ xas-æk -e /-a:n rope-iz def long-iz def good-def.art.-pl the good long ropes c. *wres-e drež-e xas-æk-e rope-iz pl long-iz pl good-def.art.-pl the good long ropes Given the principle (universal, as far as we know) that agreement is structurally local, the fact that agreeing Izafe agrees with the definite article and not with the plural suffix in (15) means that the structure is as in (16): the definite article is c-commanded by the plural suffix. (16) PL Det -e IZ -æk- AP -æ N wres IZ -æ drež This is unexpected given what we know about the ordering of definiteness and number in other languages (see for instance Rijkhoff 2002). 4 The conclusion that the number suffix c-commands the definiteness suffix in Hawrami seems inescapable, though. This means that the suffixed definite article does not close the nominal projection (the way D does under the standard DP hy- 4 Rijkhoff (2002) claims, on the basis of a carefully sampled set of languages, that expressions of Locality for example demonstratives universally take scope over (i.e. are structurally higher than) expressions of Quantity, for example number or numerals, which in turn take scope over expressions of Quality, for example adjectives. He contends that /d/efinite articles can also be regarded as localizing elements (p. 185). If so, then Hawrami appears to present a counterexample to Rijkhoff s generalization. A more careful study of the semantics of the Hawrami number suffix, or of the definite article, might explain why Hawrami looks like a counterexample to the proposed universal.
136 The Noun Phrase in Hawrami pothesis). We indicate this formally by leaving Def dominated by, not DP (see footnote 3). As expected, the definite Izafe suffix -æ is used in definite clauses with plural numbers, regardless of the presence of overt plurality at the right edge. (17) a. duæ æsp-æ zɪl-æk-a:n two horse-iz def big-def.art.-pl the two big horses b. duæ æsp-æ zɪl-ækæ two horse-iz def big-def.art. idem The numeral (duæ, not due) agrees with the definite article, showing that the numeral is structurally lower than the article. We assume the following structure: (18) PL Det -a:n Q -æk- duæ AP N æsp IZ -æ zɪl Thus both the numeral and the Izafe agree with the structurally local definite article. In the absence of a definite article, the form of the numeral two is due, whether there is plural marking or not. This indicates that this is the default form of the numeral, rather than (or in addition to) being the pluralagreeing form. The definite Izafe suffix -æ also appears when the clause has a demonstrative particle at the left edge of the clause. The demonstrative consists of two parts: a prenominal particle a:, denoting distal (hence that), or i, denoting proximate (hence this) and a suffix -æ placed at the rightmost edge of the
Anders Holmberg and David Odden 137 noun phrase. The suffix, we assume, denotes definiteness. In the following examples the final -æ is part of the demonstrative, while other cases of -æ are the Izafe. (19) a. a: æsp-æ that horse-iz def that horse b. a: æsp-æ sya:w-æ that horse-iz def black-iz def that black horse c. a: æsp-æ zɪl-æ sya:w-æ that horse-iz def bigiz def black-iz def that big black horse d. a: aħmað-æ zɪl-æ that Ahmad-IZ def big-iz def that old Ahmad In plural noun phrases modified by a demonstrative, the definite Izafe -æ still prevails. The final suffix -æ is not pronounced in this case (hence phonologically, /sya:w-e-æ/ [sya:we]), but, we assume, is present syntactically. (20) a. i æsp-æ sya:w-e these horse-iz def black-pl these black horses b. i æsp-æ pir-æ sya:w-e these horse-iz def old-iz def black-pl these old black horses Assuming locality of agreement, this implies the structure (21): the prenominal demonstrative is structurally closer to the Izafe suffix than the plural suffix is, so it controls agreement on the Izafe. The prenominal part of the demonstrative is labelled DEM1 and the postnominal part, unrealized in this case, is labelled DEM2. We assume that DEM2 is a D (see footnote 3), hence projecting DP.
138 The Noun Phrase in Hawrami (21) DP DEM2 PL DEM1 -e a: AP N æsp IZ -æ syaw The prenominal particle DEM1 and the definite article have complementary distribution. (22) *a: æsp-æ sya:w-ækæ This supports the claim that they occupy the same structural slot, c- commanding all adjectives but c-commanded by the number marker. Therefore both of them block agreement between the plural marker and the Izafe, even though DEM1 is spelled out prenominally, while Def is spelled out postnominally. The postnominal modifier pesæ such patterns neither with adjectives nor with the functional categories discussed so far. Like an adjective, it requires Izafe on the that precedes it, and does not trigger any kind of agreement on the Izafe (which therefore has the default form -i). (23) bɨz-i pesæ goat-iz such such a goat What is unique about pesæ is that it itself does not take an Izafe suffiz when it comes before an adjective. (24) gošt-i pesæ xas (*gošt-i pes-i xas) meat-iz such good meat-iz such-iz good such good meat
Anders Holmberg and David Odden 139 The plural marker -e is placed outside pesæ, and is structurally higher than pesæ. As pesæ does not control agreement, it also does not block agreement between the plural marker and the Izafe, as shown in example (25c). (25) a. bɨz-e pes-e goat-iz pl such-pl such goats b. bɨz-e sya:w-e zɪl-e pes-e goat-iz pl black-iz pl big-iz pl such-pl such big black goats c. bɨz-e pesæ syaw-e zɪl-e goat-iz pl such black-iz pl big-pl such big black goats Pesæ can take the form pes-e only at the edge of the phrase, i.e. it may host PL (plural) but not IZ. This fact shows that plural -e at the edge of the noun phrase is syntactically different from the homophonous plural agreement on the Izafe: -e at the end of the is a functional head, but inside the it is an agreement-governed variant of Izafe. (26) a. tir -e drež-e pes-e arrow-iz pl long -IZ pl such-pl such long arrows b. tir-e pesæ/*pes-e drež-e arrow-iz pl such/*such-iz pl long-pl such long arrows 2 Possessive noun phrases A third form of Izafe agreement is found in possessive noun phrases, where Izafe is realised as -u on the possessed noun s phrase. In possessive constructions, the possessor also has a case suffix -i at the end of its phrase. (27) a. pæl-u haɫo-i feather-iz poss eagle-obl feather of eagle b. ya:næ-u žæn -ækæ house-iz poss woman -def.art. house of the woman -i -obl
140 The Noun Phrase in Hawrami c. tut-ewæ-u zawro-kæ -i dog-indef-iz poss child-def.art. -obl a dog of the child The possessor case suffix -i is realized only on singular possessors. (28) qničk -a: -u bɨz -a:n-(*i) tail -PL -IZ poss goat -PL-(obl) tails of goats The form -u is also found on certain prepositions and other nominal collocations. (29) a. ser-u mezækæ-i on the table b. ša:r-u pa:wæ-i town of Pawa The possessor can be a full DP, thus can have definite articles and adjectives, inter alios. (30) æsp-u žæn-æ zɪl-ækæ-i horse-iz poss woman-iz def big-def.art-obl horse of the big woman If the possessed noun phrase contains adjectives and therefore contains multiple Izafe-suffixes, these will all agree with possessed-izafe -u. (31) a. sæk-u zɪl-u aħmað-i sack-iz poss big-iz poss Ahmed-obl A s big sack b. ktew-u sya:w-u zɪl-u pya:-kæ-i book-iz poss black-iz poss big-iz poss man-def.art-obl the man s big black book c. *sær-i zɪl-u mar-ewæ-i head-iz big-iz poss snake-indef-obl big head of a snake
Anders Holmberg and David Odden 141 The possessed noun phrase can itself be definite-marked or indefinite marked. As (32) shows, the possessed-marker -u appears after the definite article. (32) a. qničk-ækæ-u bɨzæ-kæ-i tail-def.art.-iz poss goat-def.art.-obl the tail of the goat b. qničk-ewæ-u bɪzæ-i tail-indef-iz poss goat-obl a tail of (a) goat The structure of the possessor construction is as follows. (33) PossP Poss DP Poss-IZ aħmað-i AP -u N sæk IZ -u zɪl We claim that the Poss(essee)-Izafe -u is not categorially identical with the other forms of the Izafe discussed so far. The Izafe realized as -i, -e, or -æ in Hawrami is a pure linking element devoid of interpretable features, whose role is, loosely speaking, to overtly express the syntactic relation between a head and an AP modifier in the noun phrase (we therefore call it AP-Izafe ). The fact that it is subject to agreement with various interpretable functional categories such as the definite article and the plural suffix we take to be an indication of its status as an uninterpretable category. 5 Poss-Izafe realized as -u also has the linking function in the special case when the modifier is a DP 5 See Chomsky (1995: 277-8) on the distinction between interpretable and uninterpretable features. Chomsky (2001) proposes that uninterpretable features enter the syntax unvalued, and therefore must receive the values which determine their pronunciation in the course of the syntactic derivation by agreement with interpretable features. His favorite example is subject-verb agreement, i.e. the person and number features spelled out on the finite verb in many languages, inherently unvalued but
142 The Noun Phrase in Hawrami or. Unlike AP-Izafe, however, it is not subject to agreement, but instead triggers agreement on AP-Izafe, in the manner of the definite article, the demonstrative, and the plural suffix. That Poss-Izafe triggers agreement on AP-Izafe is shown in (31a) where the lower Izafe -u attached to sæk is the usual Izafe, pronounced -u because it agrees with Poss-Izafe. It is harder to demonstrate that Poss-Izafe is not itself subject to agreement; we return to this below. Since Poss-Izafe occurs whenever the noun combines with a nominal phrase marked with the oblique case-suffix -i, we assume that Poss- Izafe assigns oblique case. We classify it as a determiner. 6 As mentioned, it occurs not only in construction with a possessor, but also in other nominal collocations, such as (34a), and also in PPs, as in (34b), always accompanied by oblique case. (34) a. ša:r-u pa:wæ-i town-iz Pawa-obl town of Pawa b. ser-u mezæ-kæ-i on-iz table-def.art-obl on the table The reason why Poss-Izafe -u appears with prepositions such as ser on is that these prepositions are actually nouns, which do not on their own assign case (see Ghomeshi 1997 for discussion of the corresponding prepositions in Persian). Agreement with Poss-Izafe is blocked by an inside definite article (as expected, given locality of agreement). (35) a. sæk-æ zɪl-ækæ-u aħmað-i sack-iz def big-def.art.-iz poss Ahmed-obl A s big sack b. æsp-æ syæw-ækæ-u žiwa:-i horse-iz def black-def.art.-iz poss Zhiwa-obl Zhiwa s black horse c. ktew-æ sya:w-æ zɪl-ækæ-u pya:-kæ-i book-iz def black-iz def big-def.art.-iz poss man-def.art-obl the man s big black book assigned a value by agreement with the interpretable (inherently valued) person and number features of the subject. The Izafe spelled out as -i, -e- or -æ is another such category, if we are right. 6 It is thereby closely related to English of in the construction a friend of John s as analyzed in Kayne (1994: 85-86).
Anders Holmberg and David Odden 143 d. aw æsp-æ sya:w-ækæ-u tær-u aħmæð-i other horse-iz def black-def.art-iz poss other-iz poss Ahmad-obl A s other black horse The following is the structure of the noun phrase with a definite possessee. As can be seen, the definite article is closer to the AP-Izafe than Poss-Izafe -u is, and therefore controls the agreement on the AP-Izafe. (36) PossP Poss DP Poss-IZ aħmað-i Det -u AP ækæ N sæk IZ -æ zɪl Possessive constructions allow us to investigate some surprising properties of the postnominal part -æ of the demonstrative, which appears at the end of the entire phrase, even after the possessor phrase. (37) a. æsp-æ sya:w-ækæ-u žiwa:-i horse-iz def black-def.art-iz poss Zhiwa-obl the black horse of Zhiwa b. a: čak w š-æ zɪl-u žiwa:-i-æ that hammer-iz def big-iz poss Zhiwa-obl-def that big hammer of Zhiwa c. a: æsp-u kæs-ewi-æ that horse-iz def person-indef.-def that horse of a person Example (b) reinforces the conclusion reached above in connection with (19)-(20) that the prenominal demonstrative particle is merged low in the, in this case lower than Poss-Izafe, as it controls agreement on the AP- Izafe. The contrast between (b) and (c) indicates that the phrase-final suffix
144 The Noun Phrase in Hawrami -æ bears no relation to the possessor, which is definite in (b), indefinite in (c), but is the other half of the two-part demonstrative discussed earlier. This means that the structure is as in (38). (38) DP PossP DEM2 Poss DP -æ Poss-IZ žiwa:-i DEM1 -u a: AP N čak w š IZ -æ zɪl As discussed, DEM1 encodes location (distal or proximal), in which case DEM2 presumably encodes the definite-deictic feature of the demonstrative. As such we might expect it to trigger agreement on the Izafe, presumably -æ in the manner of the definite article. The fact that Poss-Izafe -u is not affected by the presence of DEM2 then supports the hypothesis that Poss-Izafe is categorially different from AP-Izafe, not being subject to agreement. The positional absolute finality of DEM2 is reinforced by some surprising facts. We observed in (37) in the example a: æsp-u kæs-ewi-æ that horse of a person that final -æ appears at least at the end of the highest DP which includes both the possessor and possessee. DEM2 appears after the oblique case marker which is assigned to direct objects in non-ergative constructions. (39) a. a: tfæng-æ sya:w-i-æ geræ that gun-iz def black-obl-dem2 take take that black gun!
Anders Holmberg and David Odden 145 b. a: æsp-i-æ mawreš-u that horse-obl-dem2 sell-1s I will sell that horse c. að a: bɨz-a:-i-æ mæwin-o he those goat-pl-obl-dem2 see-3s he sees those goats Quite surprisingly, DEM2 is positioned after the subject-referring clitic pronouns attached to the end of the first argument in the VP in ergative constructions. In (40a), the 1st sg. clitic =m, signaling the subject, appears on the direct object. In (b), the 3rd sg. clitic =š, encoding the subject Ahmad. (40) a. æsp=ɨm di horse=1s saw I saw a horse b. aħmaɫ æsp-ækæ=š wræt ahmad horse-def.art=3s sold.3s Ahmad sold the horse As a clitic reflecting agreement properties of the subject and verb, we would not expect the apparently strictly DP-internal marker DEM2 to appear outside of the subject clitic, yet as (41) shows, it does. (41) a. i bɨzæ=m-æ kʊšt this goat=1s-def killed.3s I killed this goat b. a: tutæ-u aħmað-i=m-æ di that dog-iz poss A-obl.=1s-dem saw.3s I saw that dog of Ahmad 3 Other topics: other, deverbal nouns, and relatives The modifier tær other is systematically preceded by Izafe -i, thus we might expect it to be like any adjective. (42) a. tfæng-i tær other gun b. tfæng-ew-i tær another gun c. tfæng-ew-i zɪl-i tær another big gun However, tær follows the definite article (which then takes the Izafe suffix). (43) a. aw mar-ækæ-i tær
146 The Noun Phrase in Hawrami the other snake b. aw æsp-æ zɪl-ækæ-i tær the other big horse c. *aw æsp-æ zɪl-ækæ tær In N-of-N structures, the Izafe suffix is -u as expected, down to the controlling definite article. (44) a. aw tfæng-æ zɪl-ækæ-u tær-u aħmað-i the other gun of A b. *aw tfæng-æ zɪl-ækæ-{ø/i} tær-u aħmað-i c. *aw tfæng-æ zɪl-ækæ-u tær-ø aħmað-i The role of the initial particle aw in this construction is not entirely clear to us. MacKenzie (1966) suggests that it means that, of two. It shows up in a few examples without tær, as in aw ħaftæ last week, aw marakæ other snake, aw maraka:n other snakes, aw yukæ the other, aw tfængækæ other gun. The demonstratives a: and i:, with the phrase-final vowel -æ, appear to have complementary distribution with aw, as expected under MacKenzie s analysis. (45) a. a: kæsæ -i tær-æ that person -IZ other-dem2 that other person b. a: kæs-a:n-i tær-æ that person-pl-iz other-dem2 those other persons According to the analysis (16), the definite article does not project a DP, so the pattern of agreement is as expected, under our local agreement account. It shows that the AP-Izafe whose default form is -i is not restricted to occurring inside of the definite article, but also shows that whether it does or not, its form is determined by local agreement. Deverbal nouns allow an object which comes before the noun, with no case or other marking. The example (46a) shows a direct object, which precedes the nominalised verb, and (46b) shows the subject of an intransitive verb. We bracket the preverbal object and verb for clarity. (46) a. [har fra=dæ-i] mud throw-iz throwing of mud
Anders Holmberg and David Odden 147 b. rama-u ħæsæn-i run-iz poss Hasan-obl Hasan s running The examples in (47) illustrate nominalization of transitive verbs with null subjects (47a) and overt subjects and objects (47b-c). (47) a. [aw wardæ-i] water drink-iz drinking of water b. [aw wardæ-u] ħæsæn-i water drink-iz poss Hasan-obl Hasan s drinking of water c. [gaw wʊrætæ-u] ħæsæn-i cow sell-iz poss Hasan-obl Hasan s selling of a cow Notice that the possessive Izafe appears on the nominalised clause before the subject, that is, the nominalization has the same possessee + possessor structure of the analogous English Hasan s selling of a cow. The suffix -i in (46b) and (47b,c) is clearly the oblique case suffix. We are less certain about the suffix -i in (46a) and (47a). The fact that it is overridden by Poss-IZ -u in (47b,c) suggests that it is the Izafe -i. This is also consistent with the notion that the Izafe marks the modified constituent when a noun or merges with a modifier, even though, in the standard cases the modifier follows the head N/. While subjects of nominalized clauses must come after the verb (thus have N of N structure), objects may come after the verb as well. Accordingly, (48a,b) are ambiguous, where Zhiwa and Ahmad can be construed either as subject or object, but (48c) unambiguously identifies Ahmad as the object of seeing. (48) a. kʊštæ-u žiwæ-i kill-iz poss Zhiwa-obl. killing of Zhiwa b. diæ-u aħmað-i see-iz poss Ahmad-obl. seeing of Ahmad c. aħmaɫ diæ-i Ahmad see-obl seeing Ahmad
148 The Noun Phrase in Hawrami As shown by (49), only one argument of the noun can be postnominal, constructed with the Izafe -u. (49) *wʊrætæ-u gaw-i ħæsæn-i ( Hasan s selling of a cow ) wʊrætæ-u gaw-u ħæsæn-i This supports our claim that this Izafe is different from other Izafe-suffixes, being categorially a determiner and case-assigner, in addition to being an Izafe suffix. There is no Izafe -i on object nouns inside of nominalizations, even when they contain an adjective. (50) a. [rɨsq syaw kʊštæ-u] aħmað-i rat black kill-iz poss Ahmad-obl b. *[rɨsq-i syaw(-i) kʊštæ-u] aħmað-i rat-iz black(-iz) kill-iz poss Ahmad-obl Ahmed s killing of a black rat In addition, the object in a nominalization cannot be marked as plural or as indefinite; nor can the noun have a pre-head modifier such as a numeral, either (51) a. *[rɨsq-ewæ kʊštæ-u] aħmað-i ( Ahmed s killing of a rat ) b. *[rɨsq-e kʊštæ-u] aħmað-i ( Ahmed s killing of rats ) c. *[duæ rɨsq kʊštæ-u] aħmað-i ( Ahmed s killing of two rats ) All of this could indicate that the complex deverbal noun construction is a compound word, not a phrase. The generalization would then be that a deverbal noun can only take one argument constructed with -u, therefore only one argument can be assigned the oblique case. A second argument can, however, be incorporated, forming a compound with the deverbal noun, thereby avoiding the need for case (cf. Baker 1988: 117ff.). The presence of an adjective is problematic for the compounding hypothesis, though, as the non-head of a noun-noun compound is typically a bare noun, or even (in some languages) just a root (Josefsson 1999). 7 The claim would be that the noun, adjective and deverbal noun combination [rɨsq syaw kʊštæ] is a complex noun. (52) [ [ N rɨsq syaw kʊštæ ]] -u aħmað-i 7 The possibility of a proper name as preposed object, as in (48c), is also unexpected under the compound analysis.
Anders Holmberg and David Odden 149 A definite-form Izafe, however, shows up in the complex deverbal noun construction just in case the deverbal noun is itself definite, marked by the suffix -ækæ-. Note that A-N ordering, as in (53c,d), is also possible in preverbal objects. (53) a. [rɨsq-æ syaw kʊšt-ækæ-u] aħmað-i rat-iz def black kill-def.art.-iz poss Ahmad-obl Ahmed s killing of a black rat b. [rɨsq-æ zɪl-æ syaw kʊšt-ækæ-u aħmað-i rat-iz big-iz black kill-def.art-iz poss Ahmad-obl A s killing of a big black rat c. [syaw-æ rɨsq kʊšt-ækæ-u] aħmað-i black-iz def rat kill-def.art.-iz poss Ahmad obl Ahmed s killing of a black rat d. [zɪl-æ rɨsq kʊšt-ækæ-u] aħmað-i Ahmed s killing of a big rat e. *[zɪl rɨsq kʊšt-ækæ-u] aħmað-i This is unexpected if the construction is a compound noun rather than a phrase. We conclude, tentatively, that the preposed argument is a large enough to contain adjectives, but not large enough to contain a numeral, number, or definiteness. Relative clauses are outside of the core, standing after the definite article or anything else that seems to be inside the, including the phrasefinal DEM2 suffix-æ. There is in fact no evidence that they are a constituent with the rest of the, and the relative clause can be separated from the rest of the, appearing after the main clause verb as in the last example below. (54) a. tut-æ sya:w-ækæ [kæ gæfa-i mægæfo] dog-iz def black-def.art comp bark-obl bark.present the black dog which is barking b. a: aesp-æ [kæ aħmaɫ æsæ=š] that horse-def REL A. sold=3s horse which A. sold c. a: aesp=ɨm-æ di [kæ aħmaɫ æsæ=š] that horse=1s-def saw.3s REL A. sold=3s I saw that horse which A. sold As we noted above, in ergative constructions, a subject-referring oblique clitic e.g. ɨm appears at the end of the first VP constituent, here the object. The -internal definite suffix comes after the clitic; the relative clause comes after the verb and is discontinous with the object.
150 The Noun Phrase in Hawrami 4 Summary In this paper we have described the structure of the DP in Hawrami. We have paid special attention to the Izafe, the characteristically Iranian inflection marking modified categories in the noun phrase. This is because (a) the Izafe in Hawrami is subject to agreement/concord with number, definiteness, and possessorhood, and (b) on the assumption quite uncontroversial as far as we are aware that agreement is determined under local c-command, the form of the Izafe gives quite firm evidence of the structural relations among many of the lexical and functional categories making up the DP in Hawrami, including the head noun, adjectives, possessors, quantifiers, numerals, demonstratives, definiteness, and number. Particularly in the case of constituents which occur on different sides of the head noun, the structural relation between them can be very difficult to establish. In Hawrami, however, the form of the Izafe reveals unambiguously which category is structurally closest to the Izafe. Some findings are quite surprising. In particular, the fact that the definite article ækæ is within the scope of the plural number suffix is surprising given what is known about the relation between number and definiteness in other languages. The Izafe suffix u, which occurs in constructions with a nominal modifier (typically a possessor), is a different category from the Izafe that occurs in construction with adjectives. Although both mark a modified constituent, -u has properties of a determiner, assigning oblique Case to the modifying nominal and triggering agreement on an Izafe which it locally c-commands. The next step should be to determine which of these syntactic properties of the DP are unique to Hawrami, and which are shared with related Iranian languages, where these properties may, in some cases, be harder to detect. The precise grammatical function of the Izafe is obviously an important question, which, however, we have chosen not to discuss in this paper. A number of different hypotheses have been put forth recently (based on facts from Persian, except Holmberg & Odden (2004) which is based on Hawrami). The Izafe is either a Case marker (Samiian 1994, Larson & Yamakido 2005); a linking element inserted at PF (Ghomeshi 1997); a linker required when a predicate is inverted with its subject (den Dikken & Singhapreecha 2004); a morpheme required to mark the head in an otherwise too symmetrical phrase (Holmberg & Odden 2004). We do not, in this paper, take a stand on which of these formal theories of the Izafe is closest to the mark as the purpose of the paper is to present what we know about the noun phrase in Hawrami in a relatively theory-neutral fashion.
Anders Holmberg and David Odden 151 References Baker, Mark C. 1988. Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program, MIT Press, Cambridge MA. Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework, in R. Martin, D. Michaels, and J. Uriagereka (eds.) Step by step. Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, 89-155. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Collins, Chris. 2000 Eliminating labels, in S.D. Epstein & T.D. Seely (ed.) Derivation and explanation in the minimalist program, Blackwell, Malden and Oxford. 42-64. Dikken, Marcel den & Pornsiri Singhapreecha. 2004. Complex noun phrases and linkers. Syntax 7, 1-54. Ghomeshi, Jila. 1997 Non-projecting nouns and the Ezafe construction in Persian, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 15, 729-788. Holmberg, Anders & David Odden. 2004. The Izafe and structure in Hawrami. Durham Working Papers in Linguistics 9. School of English Literature, Language, and Linguistics, University of Newcastle upon Tyne. Josefsson, Gunlög. 1997. On the principles of word formation in Swedish. Lund: Lund University Press. Kayne, Richard. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax, MIT Press, Cambridge MA. Larson, Richard & Hiroko Yamakido. 2004. Ezafe and the deep position of nominal modifiers. Unpublished, Stony Brook University. MacKenzie, David N. 1966. The dialect of Awroman (Hawrāmān-ī Luhōn). Grammatical sketch, texts, and vocabulary. Copenhagen: Munksgaard. Rijkhoff, Jan. 2002. The Noun Phrase. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Samiian, Vida. 1994. The Ezafe construction. Some implications for the theory of X-bar syntax, in M. Marashi (ed.) Persian studies in North America. Iranbooks, Bethesda, Maryland, pp. 17-41.